GhostScientist Research Question Refiner
Transform "I'm interested in X" into "I will investigate whether Y under conditions Z, measuring W."
The Problem
Most research ideas fail not because they're bad, but because they're:
- Too vague to act on
- Too ambitious to complete
- Too incremental to matter
- Missing a clear success criterion
This skill fixes that.
Process
Stage 1: Excavate the Interest
Start by understanding what's actually pulling at you:
Questions to ask:
- What sparked this interest? (Paper, conversation, problem you encountered?)
- What's the version that excites you most?
- What would be cool if it worked?
- Who would care about the answer?
Output: A paragraph capturing the raw interest, unfiltered.
Stage 2: Map the Territory
Before scoping, understand the landscape:
What's Known:
- What's the current state-of-the-art?
- What are the established approaches?
- What have people tried that didn't work?
What's Unknown:
- What are the acknowledged open problems?
- What assumptions does current work make?
- Where do methods fail?
What's Controversial:
- Where do researchers disagree?
- What's claimed but not convincingly shown?
- What's believed but not rigorously tested?
Output: A structured map with citations/references for each area.
Stage 3: Find the Gap
A good research question lives in a gap that is:
| Property | Too Little | Just Right | Too Much |
|---|---|---|---|
| Novelty | Redoing existing work | New angle or combination | No foundation to build on |
| Difficulty | Trivial to answer | Challenging but doable | Requires breakthroughs |
| Impact | No one cares | Community would update beliefs | Nobel prize (unrealistic) |
| Scope | One experiment | Thesis chapter / paper | Multiple PhDs |
Gap-finding questions:
- What would change if we relaxed assumption X?
- What if we applied method A to domain B?
- What's between approach X and approach Y?
- What fails in setting Z that works elsewhere?
Output: 3-5 candidate gaps, each as one sentence.
Stage 4: Refine to Concrete Question
For each candidate gap, sharpen into a question:
The Formula:
[Action verb] + [specific phenomenon] + [under conditions] + [measurable outcome]
Examples of refinement:
❌ Vague: "How can we make transformers more efficient?" ✅ Concrete: "Does structured sparsity in attention patterns preserve performance on long-context tasks while reducing compute by >50%?"
❌ Vague: "Can robots learn from humans better?" ✅ Concrete: "Does incorporating gaze direction in demonstrations improve sample efficiency for manipulation tasks compared to kinesthetic teaching alone?"
❌ Vague: "What makes language models hallucinate?" ✅ Concrete: "Do retrieval-augmented models hallucinate less on factual questions when retrieval confidence is used to modulate generation temperature?"
Stage 5: Feasibility Check
For each refined question, assess:
Resources Required:
- Compute: GPU-hours estimate
- Data: Available or needs collection?
- Time: Weeks/months realistically
- Expertise: What skills are needed?
Risk Assessment:
- What's the probability this works at all?
- What if the hypothesis is wrong? (Is negative result publishable?)
- What could go wrong technically?
- What could invalidate the whole direction?
Dependencies:
- Does this require other work to finish first?
- Are there rate-limiting steps?
- What can be parallelized?
Stage 6: The Litmus Tests
A good research question passes all of these:
The Advisor Test:
"If I pitched this in 2 minutes, would a busy professor say 'yes, go do that' rather than 'hmm, let's talk more'?"
The Paper Test:
"Can I envision the title, abstract, and figure 1 of the resulting paper?"
The Null Result Test:
"If my hypothesis is wrong, would that still be interesting to report?"
The Motivation Test:
"Am I actually excited to work on this for 6+ months?"
The Explanation Test:
"Can I explain why this matters to a smart non-expert in 60 seconds?"
Output Format
Deliver a Research Question Brief:
# Research Question Brief
## The Interest (Raw)
[Original unfiltered interest]
## Territory Map
### What's Known
- [Point 1] ([citation])
- [Point 2] ([citation])
### What's Unknown
- [Open question 1]
- [Open question 2]
### What's Controversial
- [Debate 1]
## Candidate Gaps
1. [Gap 1]
2. [Gap 2]
3. [Gap 3]
## Refined Questions
### Question 1: [Title]
**Statement:** [Precise question]
**Hypothesis:** [What you expect to find]
**Feasibility:** [Brief assessment]
**If it works:** [Impact]
**If it doesn't:** [What we still learn]
### Question 2: [Title]
[Same structure]
## Recommendation
[Which question to pursue and why]
## Immediate Next Steps
1. [Concrete action 1]
2. [Concrete action 2]
3. [Concrete action 3]
Common Failure Modes
The Kitchen Sink: Trying to answer too many questions at once → Fix: Ruthlessly cut until there's ONE core question
The Solution in Search of a Problem: Starting with a method, not a question → Fix: Ask "Who has this problem? Why hasn't it been solved?"
The Incremental Trap: Small delta on existing work → Fix: Ask "Would this change how people think?"
The Impossible Dream: Beautiful question, can't be answered → Fix: Ask "What's the minimal version that's still interesting?"
The Boring Sure Thing: Will definitely work, nobody cares → Fix: Add ambition until there's meaningful risk